User talk:Giggette

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giggette.

This is the user talk page of Giggette, where you can send messages and comments to Giggette.

Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Put new text under old text.

New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.

I see you still resist starting a discussion on the talkpage. Instead, I'm starting it here. Looking at those maps, there's obviously far more difference than simply "dominance" between two areas. There's a different shape to the entire empire. What is the cause of the differences between the maps? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, well, first I did not still resist starting a discussion on the talkpage because this discussion started here weeks ago, and not only on the talkpage of this map, and it was finally closed there and on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, and yes the only differente of these maps is the dominance between two areas, that's all. Both maps have sources but some more reliable sources than others, only the Wikipedias should choose to use for the articles. And this map was firstly created than the other. --Giggette (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've shifted your response here, so I can follow the thread of conversation. A discussion on the file talkpage is different from the template talkpage. Looking at the maps, it's quite clear that the colouring in of territory between Teozapotlan and Xoconochco is not the only difference. The maps look very different. Why? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly it is the only difference, the map was created basing from the following sources.

1.- [1] by the Department of History by Ian Mladjov, University of Michigan.

Maunus said to be the author and his map was created by Ross hassig's Aztec Warfarehere. --Giggette (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's wrong and you know it. Maunus said that he made an original research compiling various maps of journeys of Aztec armies from Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare, which contains no map of the Aztec Empire. Also, Maunus said that he recommends the use of Yavidaxiu's map. El Comandante (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And of course you know that when I saw that Maunus pretended that his map was based on Aztec Warfare, I asked him what was the exact page of the map that he used, and then he admitted there was no map of the Aztec Empire in Aztec Warfare and that he compiled various maps with absolutely no direct link with the Aztec Empire, just maps of different journeys of Aztec armies. And where an imperial army passes, it's not always considered as a territory depent on an Empire, if there is no treaty establishing such a relation of tributary or client state. That's why these territories are NOT included in the Aztec Empire by true specialists such as Michael E. Smith, Frances Berdan, Michael Coe, Leonardo López Luján and all the scholars peer-reviewing Arqueología Mexicana. El Comandante (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You repeat the same over and over again, probably these territories are NOT included by "true" specialists but others editors YES include these territories, where an imperial army passes, that's why both maps must be in the template. Furthermore we can see these territories with others maps in use "File:Aztecempirelocation.png" or "File:Aztecexpansion.png". --Giggette (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a bunch of maps made by unknown authors or not mesoamericanists. You are NOT able to quote a single specialized source to support your map, while Sémhur's is supported by a lot of very famous specialists. What else? El Comandante (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I can explain : the map that Giggette wants to impose everywhere is based on thisGengiskanhg map, itself based on no identifiable source, and more or less supported by another map by Maunus, which is an unreliable original research, as Maunus admitted it, compiling various maps of journeys of Aztec armies from Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare. Instead, the map created by Sémhur is based on this map created by Yavidaxiu and based on a special issue of the very specialized and renowed mesoamericanist review Arqueología Mexicana published by mexican archaeological authorities, and also supported by recent and specialized sources such as the worldwide famous book The Aztecs by Michael E. Smith, which provides full explanations about the name and type of dependency of each tributary or client state (primary sources supporting this map originally created by Frances Berdan can be read in her book Aztec Imperial Strategies). It is VERY clear that Giggette's map, which is NOT supported by Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare (as Maunus conceded it), and is therefore only supported by non specialized sources, is VERY LESS reliable than Sémhur's, as Maunus himself said. But she doesn't want to accept these facts, probably because she's a mexican nationalist wanting to glorify Aztec empire exagerating its power. El Comandante (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary El Comandante. I have however seen maps showing an extended contiguous Aztec Empire offline, in museums and such. Has the research developed recently? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

But what is the reason for the difference? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Teotitlan as others areas are where the aztec imperial army passes and some authors not always considered these areas as territories depend of the Aztec Empire. I think these areas should be included in a single map of the Aztec Empire with light green, and not to discriminate authors who include them, that's my opinion. --Giggette (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to rework your map to show the areas that are light green then? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes sure I can changed it, but "my map" is not exactly my map because I reuploaded it when I noticed that it was replaced by El Comandante's request [13] from French Wikipedia, and now the original map or "my reuploaded map" is not longer in use as originally, only this replaced map without pior consensus before "update", that's my disagreement or dispute with El Comandante on COMMONS 1, 2, 3, 4 and finally [14] and he can't understand that he must have uploaded another file with its sources and have consensus on wikis to change it and don't commit edit war, although El Comandante was blocked by insult me many times (personal attacks) he stills as you can see, just tired of arguing. --Giggette (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if you change it, then we have two clear maps and everyone wins. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the minor nature of this I figured I would simply discuss it here instead of on the file's discussion page. On the file Spanish speakers in the Americas (orthographic projection) the numbers are all given using a decimal "." point with the exception of Belize which uses a "," comma. I thought it would be a simple fix for the next time you update the file. Regards Coinmanj (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hi Giggette, I found one of your files (Joaquín Velázquez de León.jpg) but I don't understand your description of it. According to you, it's self-portrait by Joaquín Velázquez de León, but then you specify that the author is "Ramón P. Cantó". In addition, the dates seem to be wrong. Clearly, it was not made on 8 October 2010, and Joaquín Velázquez de León did not live from 1870 to 1907 (he lived from 1803 to 1882). I found the same lithograph in a book published in 1885, but it doesn't mention who is the author nor its date of creation, so I would like to know if you could verify the information you provided. Thank you! --José Gnudista (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)